Rich

Gambled on 3rd down rather than going for a 48 yard field goal with a kicker who is playing lights out. I meant to ask, why do people dislike Chris Jones personally? He seems ok to me. Just his thoughts and mentality on some things. His first year as head coach he refused the traditional handshake after a game with the opposing coach because he felt that it wasn't "genuine" . Apparently he has relented and shakes hands this year because he didn't want to bring "negative' publicity to the club, but I'm sure he still thinks it is an empty gesture.

If charged, this will be a test of the NHL... do they immediately suspend him? Do the Blackhawks? Should they? What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Should be immediately suspended. Too serious. Its not like he wouldnt get paid. This isnt like you or me at our jobs and even then some places would suspend or fire their employees after a charge. I understand the thought process behind this, but there is a reason the legal system has been setup in this way. Lets say the Jets are about to play the Blackhawks in the playoffs. Should someone pay someone to setup a situation where a Jonathan Toewes gets put in a similar situation? I know that is an extreme example and has a low chance of happening and risk of that person facing repercussions after the fact, but IMO it is a dangerous slope, especially where a jilted ex-lover is set on revenge. Rape is a horrible thing and if guilty, should be fully prosecuted and sent to jail. But you can't punish someone until it is proven. I guess the Voynov incident has sort of set a precedent. Here is an excerpt from an article when he was suspended: So I guess the league is going to have to try and look at the evidence and try to decide how legitimate the claim is.

If charged, this will be a test of the NHL... do they immediately suspend him? Do the Blackhawks? Should they? What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

I agree you lose a lot of context with just the last post. I think I had this setting at a lower number before and ended up making it higher. The problem is if you hit the limit and have to manually delete some old posts, that is very difficult to do on a mobile device as well. I don't really like any of the options. I need to find something where if the limit is 5, it would just automatically delete the posts above 5, you shouldn't have to do it manually. Might need to research this a bit more.

And it clogs up the page and makes the conversations annoying and difficult to read. http://morningbigblue.com/community/topic/8047-maximum-quote-setting/?p=139799

Some people have made mention that the current quote system on the board make it difficult to read some posts, and if you hit the maximum, you need to delete the quotes yourself. This is a configurable setting and is currently set to the default 10. I could bump this up but it would mean some really ugly posts when they all quoted, especially on mobile devices. I can make it lower than people would have to manually remove quotes more often. Or I can make it so only the last post is quoted and the quoted parts aren't carried over. This may make some posts hard to follow if they don't have the whole history. What would you like to see?

Have to say, I think Walters did good with the first rounder this year, and looks to have a real find in Waggoner with our supplemental pick. The other picks...we'll see. If my memory is correct Chungh was touted as CFL ready by analysts so as much as a fan boy as I am I can't give Walters so much credit with Chungh. Walters still drafted him and didn't pass on him like Ottawa did. I'm not saying it was a stretch or anything to take him, but the day our GM starts using the media analysts opinions on who to draft rather than his own scouting staff is the day I want a new GM.

Good catch, well mostly good catch. The results of the Toronto/Hamilton game was still pending for Week 6, Week 7 is upcoming Its been updated and fixed the leaders in the above post.

Deadline to get your picks in this week is Thursday at 9PM. Yikes that is a late start on a Thursday, glad it isn't a Bomber game. Make your picks here: http://morningbigblue.com/community/index.php?app=pickems&do=games&pid=6&wid=77 Top 3 this week are: 1 - Blueandgold (16 correct picks) 2 - Bigblue204 and sweep the leg are tied for 2nd place (14 correct picks) 3 - Eight people tied for 3rd place with 13 correct picks - bigg jay, coach17, Atomic, kelownabomberfan, Jacquie, saskbluefan, Spuds, sweep the leg, and WBBFanWest The leaderboard can be seen here: http://morningbigblue.com/community/index.php?app=pickems&do=leaderboard&pid=6&wid=76

The scariest thing is that there many people out there who think it's perfectly OK to jack up taxes and send like crazy. Usually people who don't have any money of their own. That much in foreign aid increase????? Charity starts at home and there are tens of thousands right HERE who could be aided by that cash. Im sort of wondering what type of person is attracted to the NDP. I noticed a former co-worker posting on FB after the election announcement saying how we *must* get rid of Harper. She probably makes $60,000-$70,000 a year. Married. So lets say household income is $120,000-$140,000. Has 2-3 kids. Why would she be attracted to the NDP? Not being a parent I cant say for sure... but could it be the free child care? Tax credits for having kids? Fitting into that perfect demographic that would benefit the most? While single people or wealthy (wealthier) people pay more? One of my good friends is very pro NDP to the point where he is seriously considering running in the next provincial election with the thought of getting his name out there and probably losing with all the bad press the party has gotten over the last few years, then making a second push with the hopes of getting elected in the following election. He is very involved in his local constituency and does a lot of fund raising with them. We've had some very interesting debates for sure as I am anything but NDP, landing somewhere between Liberal and Conservative. To him, the NDP is about doing the greater good for the general population. He is healthy, working at a decent job, and doesn't mind chipping in and paying more to give to and help those that can't help themselves. Has nothing but good things to say about the people he meets and works with through the party, and can't understand why people wouldn't want to do those things. Everyone is "working together for the greater good". For him, it isn't at all about not working and not making your own way or taking advantage of the sysetm, it is about helping people and making things more equitable. I don't know if he doesn't believe in the people who end up taking advantage of the system when NDP policies are put into place, or takes it as a cost for the greater good, but I will give him credit for his utopian idealism, even though there is no way it ever works out that way in the end.

The same concept should go for government unions that require workers to join unions as part of their job. People should have the freedom to "opt out" of their union and keep their union dues in their pockets. It shouldn't be mandatory membership. Of course, if this actually happened, most government unions would collapse almost over night. I'm not sure about that. Many people in unions are just as passionate for them as many people are against them. I've been forced to be in some unions in some places that I've worked, and there are many hardcore pro union people that work there. Also, if the government unions dissolved, the pay and benefits that many civil servants get would be reduced to be in-line with industry averages, so why would they get rid of their unions? Government is one work place that isn't there to turn a profit and can't close up shop if pay and benefits don't make fiscal sense. It is the perfect place for unions to thrive.

I agree with this, but that is completely different than there being a law to cap political contributions from unions.

Drives me crazy. I guess the argument is, the money they spend on politics is to benefit the union members. But I wish there was a law to cap it or reduce it or make it public what was being spent. I attended one of my union meetings during a recent provincial election and at the end of the meeting, the executive implored the members to do everything they could to get the NDP re-elected. It wasnt even "this is business" they were agonized over the idea of the NDP possibly losing. It really bothered me. But there is no talking to my union. ive never met a more paranoid, mean spirited bunch of people. During our last contract negotiation, I attended a meeting and they brought in a top guy from Ontario. He belittled management...and not the BOD or executive teams, the front line managers, many of whom used to be in our union and many people in our union aspired to move up to that front line management. Not to mention the managers were also unionized. They also belittled other unions. It was disgraceful. They are incredibly secretive and wont tell the members anything. When asked why they couldnt email us the result of recent talks (email to our work email), they were incredulous..."How stupid do you think we are?" the union president asked. "The company will read the emails." "So what," I asked. "Im pretty sure the company knows what they agreed to in the meeting they were in." Just a miserable, paranoid bunch I am certainly no fan of unions or the NDP, but you can't cap union contributions from unions without doing the same to the conservatives and business where they receive their contributions. That is just how the system works and whose interests the parties are supporting. I agree with making all donations public though. Everyone should know what unions and businesses support what parties and to what degree. That would be good transparency. The argument about whether or not it is a good use of union dues is of course a completely different subject, and I'm willing to bet opinions differ wildly amongst the union membership. In the last federal election, the conservatives received $9.09 of public funding per vote, the liberals $8.67 and the NDP $8.26. Of course the gross dollars are hugely disparate as the conservatives received many more votes than the other two parties.

Very interesting as I believe it was reported that Noel left the Giants to pursue pro opportunities. Guess there was no coaching jobs offered to him. He is going to be turning 60 this year. Wonder if he is just getting too old to connect to the younger players.

I can't remember if I've ever posted this story here or not, but I was reminded of this after seeing a friend of mine last week. I have the utmost respect for police officers. These people do a job where at any minute someone can pull a gun or a knife on them and their lives are at risk. Yes, these cases may be few and far between, but they do and can happen, more so than the chance of something like this happening to me while I sit comfortably at a desk. However, like any cross section of humanity, you are going to get the good and the bad in the police force. Even the good have bad days. I believe there are far more good than bad, but the problem resides in the protection of the bad. No cop is going to rat another cop out, and most will look the other way. I get why it happens, don’t really know what the solution is. There is a club or brotherhood mentality that exists within it and you have to work within the rules and culture of that club or basically be black balled and find a new career. Young recruits get indoctrinated into it when they first enter the force at a young and impressionable age. I have a friend, he was my first project manager that I had when I entered the work force. At the age of about 40 he got so disillusioned with the industry we work in that he quit and went back to university to become a school teacher. He was lucky to be in a pretty good position financially to be able to afford no income for a few years while he went back to school. He grew up and lives in the North End and when he graduated he decided that he would teach in elementary schools in the North End to give back to the community he grew up in. He rides his bike to school and on some busy streets around Salter would hop onto the side walk, which is of course technically illegal. One morning, a police officer pulls him over and wants to ticket him for riding on the side walk. Yes, this is the police officers prerogative but really how many times do people actually get ticketed for this. I don’t know if this is relevant or not to the cop, but my friend is a visible minority. I won’t go into the details of what happened because I wasn't there and only have my friend’s side of the story and don’t know if he did or said anything to escalate this, he was probably shocked at getting the ticket, but the end result of this encounter was my friends cell phone thrown to the ground he tried to call the school to tell them he was going to be late to have someone in his room for his students and my friend in hand cuffs on the side walk as some of his students walked by. According to him, he did tell the police who he was where he worked and what he was going to do with the phone. All this for riding his bike on the side walk. He isn't a violent person, and once the handcuffs came on, my friend basically laid down on the side walk, closed his eyes, and literally force himself to sleep because he didn't want things to escalate further. Other cops were eventually called in, the original cop escorted away from the scene and the ticket left on the ground beside him as they eventually unhand cuffed him. They told him they were going to leave the ticket beside him, take the handcuffs off and he could get up whenever he was ready. My friend decided he was going to take this to court because he felt he was completely wronged in this situation. He would have been fine with the ticket, but he felt the whole escalation of the encounter with the handcuffs and phone knocked out of his hands was excessive. In 5 years he has paid about the equivalent of a down payment on a house in lawyers’ fees, gone through 3 different lawyers, and the whole things has been dragged out so long that now the cop is going on early retirement. So whatever outcome this gets to probably won’t really matter. And this hasn’t even reached its conclusion yet. It is still ongoing. He has fought his own lawyers every step of the way. He has learnt how to play the system to get the lawyers he is paying to fight for him, because none of them really want to. He feels all the lawyers and cops are buddies and they have tried to push this away, talk him out of it and get him to stop every step of the way. He despises his current lawyer but he is the best of the bunch and at least actually fights for his interests even if the lawyer disagrees with him. It is possible the cop was just having a bad day, and my friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that still doesn't make it right. At the end of the day, it looks like they are probably going to find in favour of my friend and negotiations are coming up to find a settlement before that happens (which at this point, after all the time and money spent is probably not going to happen). What is the point of all this? I don’t know. Police don’t have an easy job, but I think most of us would like to think that because of the power and position they are in that they would be held up to a higher standard. Stuff like this probably happens more often than we would like to think, but the system is stacked against anyone who wants to fight it and has a legitimate complaint. No one in their right mind would spend the money, time, and effort my friend has. Most people (me included) would have just accepted the ticket and gone on with life with a bruised ego and a little more disillusioned at the system. He has been told to just accept it and move on. That the cop has probably gotten endless ribbing for what he did to a school teacher from the other police officers and that is punishment enough. That is coming from his lawyer who he is paying to fight for and represent his rights. Is it right that this encounter has forced this cop into early retirement? (I'm assuming this is the reason he is retiring) I'm sure he is getting full pension and can go work another job on top if he wants to. If this does go to trial and the finding is in favour of my friend, no idea what impact this would have on the cop. Is it right that my friend was likely racially profiled and left in hand cuffs on the side walk for riding his bike on the side walk? It really is an unfortunate incident all around, and probably should have never happened. But since it did, what should the result of it all be? Should a cop really be punished for one bad decision (no idea of the history or track record of this cop)? Is my friend entitled to any recourse for the way he was treated? I do appreciate the police and everything they do, but part of the problem is that it appears the police really aren't held to the same standard that everyone else is. I can’t find the link but there was an article where a study was done showing the anomalies of how police officers almost never get tickets. Get pulled over, flash of a badge, and sent on their way. The money this saves them in the long run on insurance and things like that do add up. Should this be considered a perk of the job, or is there an inherent problem with how these things are run? And as more and more of these incidents get publicity in today's media magnified world with cameras on every phone, are the police forces going to be forced to change?

Jets have to start inserting at least a couple of rookies per year. My money on one of those is Copp to replace Slater.

No harm, no foul mate. And yes, I get that my world view isn't universal (and let's all give thanks for that!). If I was Taman, my big fear would be to someday look back on my life and regret that I often took the path of least resistance. What might I have done and accomplished otherwise? Maybe Brendan's comfortable with that, and that's fine... for him. I want the GM of my team to be a guy who does what he does for the Bombers because he believes it's the right thing to do and wears the result without excuses. As I said, I have no doubt that on a personal level, Taman is a real nice guy and I'm happy that he's being a real nice guy, in Saskatchewan, and I hope that he's there for a long, long time to come. I think you are making a lot of assumptions on Taman's motives and decision making based solely on what is reported in the media (unless you have some kind of inside knowledge). When you are in a job like GM that has so much media exposure, what you say and do externally doesn't always match with what you say and do internally ... and for good reason.

Impossible to say they will never have the fan support. It takes time to build up a fanbase. Look at Tampa Bay, LA, San Jose, Nashville. Put a good team on the ice and the fans will come. In Canada you have three or more generations of hockey fans to draw from. It takes time to build up that kind of support. Frankly I think all the bitching that Canadian hockey fans do about southern expansion is a little embarrassing. I don't know, when you take a hockey team out of Winnipeg to move it to a market that barely supports it, I think the fans that lost their hockey team have a right to *****. Sure there are a lot of reasons why that happened, but it doesn't sting any less to the locals here who lost their team only to see this kind of support in its new town: I wonder if Nordique fans ***** as much seeing as how the Colorado franchise is actually supported by their fans. According to Forbes, the Avalanche are at least supported enough to turn an operating profit. There are many US teams that don't. Including the Coyotes and with Florida being the worst. There is no guarantee that these markets will get support over time. All of those cities have competition from other well established professional sports. I don't think hockey will ever be "the thing" in those sun belt towns and really only garner attention in their communities when the team does really really well. Tampa Bay has had lots of success on the ice in the short time they've been there, including winning a Stanley Cup and having perennial all starts like Lecavlier and Stamkos in their time there yet their team had to institute a rule in the playoffs to only accept ticket sales from in state purchasers. They have also banned visiting team jerseys from certain sections of their arenas. And reportedly, on operating income, they are the third worst, losing $11.9M per year. So a team that is losing money decides to limit their ticket sales and discourage paying customers that support other teams to come into their building. That certainly screams that they are secure in their fan base and support.

At 72 years old and the setup of assistant GMs they have beneath him, Lou is only there as a figure head, to give advice and mentorship and to make sure the younger assistants don't go too far off the tracks. At that age he isn't going to be putting in the hours that other GMs around the league do.

Blueandgold takes the lead this week with 10 correct picks. BigBlue204, Atomic, Spuds, Sweep The Leg, USABomberFan, WBBFanWest all tied for 2nd with 9 correct pics. The leader board can be seen here: http://morningbigblue.com/community/index.php?app=pickems&do=leaderboard&pid=6&wid=74 Week 5 picks need to be in before Friday at 6 PM. Picks can be made here: http://morningbigblue.com/community/index.php?app=pickems&do=games&pid=6&wid=75

There is no toolbar in the mobile theme. You have to either go to the bottom of the webpage and click Full Version or go old school and use IMG tags. For the tags, you basically paste your image URL between these two tags: [ img ] [ /img ] (But take out the spaces between the brackets and the words)

It is an interesting article, and I’m with you, I prefer less government interference than more. I think in the end, people who use these services in the way they are intended are fine, but there will always be those who push the boundaries from two people “sharing” to a commercial venture. And if that starts happening too much, the government will definitely step in. They will say it is because of safety and a level playing field, and that might be part of it but you would have to wonder if it is also about unclaimed taxable revenue.

Glen Johnson doesn't make the rules. He is also not the one who decides how the rules are to be enforced.Refs get their weekly feedback from him on how to apply the rules.The Rules Committee and BoG tell Johnson how they want the rules interpreted. It's not his or the officials' fault if they do that and penalties go up. Johnson cannot change the way they are to be interpreted unilaterally.Actually yes he can because day to day throughout the season, he's the authority. He isn't going to unilaterally decide to overturn rule changes that the BOG implemented 4 weeks into the season. That is over stepping his authority. I know but interpretations can be quite "flexible". The rule changes were a big off season push from the league. Glenn Johnson isn't going to decide on his own that they should be applied more "flexible" unless the commissioner directs him to. He is doing what he was told to. And he isn't the one that can "decide" to change it.